This is not a serious argument. The play was reviewed by multiple officials. The play stood after VAR review. No need to rehash the facts, they are indisputable. If you want to assume, fine, you are welcome to have your opinion. However, according to the officials, there was no simulation, and that's all that matters at this point.
I agree. Ref will win it for France. They will use VAR only to help France. If you guys dont see this coming. You didn't watch the world cup 2014 draw where France magically didnt have to be in the group where they could potentially be in with another European powerhouse. Instead England Italy Uruguay and Costa Rica got to be in the group of death. You also didnt see where they qualified for 2010 wc with an Henry hand ball with 0 repercussions. Lol at anyone who thinks the world cup is fair and the refs and FIFA are impartial with no stake in the game. Platini flat out said they rigged the 98 world cup so France and Brazil would be in the final.
If Heath gets by her defender there, that's a pretty clear chance for a player of her ability in my opinion. Edit: Okay, probably not pretty clear, but I do think she gets off a decent shot more often than not.
Is it common to join such kind of footage with the song "I believe I could fly"? Maybe it's old story for all of you, guys, but I found it hilarious also.
So, I was just watching this match again, and I noticed something new regarding the USA's second PK around the 70 minute. I created a gif of the video replay: It bothered me that some people thought that Rose took a dive. What I noticed is that there was definite contact with the studs by the defender. You can clearly see the right foot of the defender (#14) move vertically when it hits Lavelle's right shin.
It's even almost up at her knee. And it was just as she was lunging for the ball, so about to put her full weight with momentum on that leg, that then landed awkwardly leading to her stumbling down. This whole "dive" narrative that she took 10 more steps or some nonsense ignores the basic mechanics of running; it's not like getting your foot on the ground is enough to hold your weight no matter what. I'd like to see some of these so-called skeptics try to run with a huge stride just as someone shoves their leg near their knee. See how you land.
While that might be a personal preference for some, it isn't "preferable" according to the rules of soccer. I suppose the rules could be changed, so that a PK is worth less than 1 goal. Also, goals from set plays could be worth less than 1 goal. But, the rules define the game, and as of now the rules say a PK goal is just as preferable as a goal in the run of play. I'll add that I was interested in what actual refs think about the Lavelle PK so I went to the refs forum. So far as I could see it was pretty one-sided that the PK call was correct, I think there was 1 vocal dissenter.
I don't agree with this. If you think about you're statement, you'll see that it's an example of what you're criticizing.
My experience with that forum is that they are painfully loyal to the laws precisely as written and that the referee was following procedure regardless of whether they think a particular law is poorly written or personal opinions on "levels" of contact. Which is useful. It's just that it may not be an accurate reflection on anything other than "were procedures followed" and "was the letter of the law followed".
No big deal. When it comes to internet conversations I'm a bit of a Special Agent Albert from Twin Peaks ("I have compassion. I have so much compassion it comes out of my nose".) I want more scoring opportunities in soccer. I love great defending, too, but in the area, it has to be great. That's the way it's supposed to be, right? If you're a defender in the area, it's on you if you make a careless tackle or challenge. You shouldn't be sticking out your leg and tripping someone or knocking them off balance and expecting to just say, it was an accident. As far as the 2nd PK in this game, this is settled doctrine now that MiLLeNNiuM posted that overhead angle, right? It shouldn't even require slo-mo for people to accept this as a PK, but this time slo-mo is definitive -- except that we're now, by slowing it down, are going to say the contact is soft, that shouldn't knock someone over like they got hit by a sledgehammer.... And Oh God, slo-mo really never solves anything, does it? What was it the German poet and philosopher Schiller said? Against slo-mo even the Gods argue in vain?
I'm tellin' ya, the abuse of slo-mo (and now a series of stills animated in a short timespan) is going in the other direction.
This is a false statement. USA scored 3 goals against Chile and 2 goals against Sweden, all against the run of play. Where are you getting your information? Spain was the only match in which they failed to score against the run of play.
You keep using this term, "against the run of play". I don't think it means what you think it means. Inigo Montoya, etc.
"Against the run of play" means a team scores when the general "run of play" is in favor of the other side. You can think of it as a counterattacking situation, but when most of the game is in favor of the non-scoring side (possession, territory, chances, etc.) "In the run of play" means "not from a set piece". You mean that one.
There's a few problems with doing this in this way. One, the momentum was only coming from the US player who was running perpendicular to the outstretched leg. The contact was extremely light, and the foot was limp (you can see how the defender's foot bends, as opposed to knocking the leg off its trajectory in any way, though I'm guessing the intent of the gif was to try and show a penalty which is why it is isolated in this moment). This kind of contact happens all the time, all over the field, without any kind of impediment or foul. Two, the American player absolutely, 100%, took a dive. Whether or not you believe that this is a foul (I don't, other's do, whatever) she 100% flops after realizing that she wasn't getting the ball, she lands fine, takes another step with her leg which wasn't touched, takes an exaggerated stride with the leg that was hit and pulls herself down. As someone who has watched the game forever, and plays at a decently high level, I can say there is no way that wasn't a dive (IMO, of course). Finally, slow motion in these cases really makes contact look worse than it is and it's a problem. Watching it in real time gives a very different view: At the end of the day the rule looks at whether it was reckless, had excessive force, or impeded the attacker. I don't think any of those 3 qualities were present in this particular 'foul'...obviously the ref did. Even if a foul were awarded for this I would have still given the American a yellow for diving.